Sorry Paul, I did that because I needed a quick reply, I won't do this again.
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Paul Johnson <p...@pjcj.net> wrote: > You asked exactly this question in both stackoverflow > ( > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13506511/is-this-code-which-is-using-switch-pm-safe > ) > and perlmonks (http://perlmonks.org/?node_id=1005070). > > Please don't do that. Or, if you think there is a good reason to do so, > link to where you have previously posted. Otherwise you are just > wasting people's time. By the time I answered your post here you > already had a perfectly good answer on stackoverflow. > > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 03:59:23PM +0530, Chankey Pathak wrote: > > I discussed with the teammates and convinced them to go for 'dispatch > > table'. Just want to know will the 'dispatch table' allow regex? As you > can > > see we're using regex in if-else part. I guess I'll have to use > > Tie::RegexHash. > > > > Regarding the Perl version: I don't know when are they (my company) gonna > > update it. I heard that we'll use 5.12 in the next update of our product > > though. > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Paul Johnson <p...@pjcj.net> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:37:15AM +0530, Chankey Pathak wrote: > > > > In our company we were using this code (given at the end) for about > 10 > > > > years and it worked fine. > > > > > > > > Some days ago we faced some issues and we had to re-code the complete > > > > package, we decided to replace this code with Switch module by > Damian (in > > > > order to improve the readability of code). > > > > > > > > Everything is working fine for us. > > > > > > > > Later I found on Perlmonks <http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=486756 > > > > > that > > > > Damian had put this module under > > > > > > > > Damian modules you shouldn't use in production because their purpose > is > > > to > > > > explore and prototype future core language features. > > > > > > > > But it is working fine for us because we are not hitting the > limitations > > > of > > > > this module (I guess). > > > > > > > > Now I ask you guys to please have a look at the both implementations > > > > (nested if else vs switch) and let me know whether using Switch in > the > > > > newer implementation is fine or are we creating some future problems > for > > > > us? Is using Switch in the code given below fine or are there any > hidden > > > > bugs/problems? > > > > > > > > I've already read the bugs and reviews of this module on CPAN and > > > Perlmonks > > > > and I guess our code is far away from hitting those bugs (I think > so). > > > > > > > > We are using Perl 5.8.5. > > > > > > > > *PS:* I know the alternatives of Switch, we have given/when in Perl > 5.10, > > > > we can use dispatch table and other solutions which are specified > > > > here< > > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/844616/obtain-a-switch-case-behaviour-in-perl-5 > > > >, > > > > but right now we just want to compare the new implementation which > uses > > > > Switch. > > > > > > > > > > > > Code: > > > > > > > > *Using nested if else: http://paste.debian.net/211434/* > > > > > > > > *Using Switch: http://paste.debian.net/211435/* > > > > > > Hmmm. Is it safe? I suppose that depends on what you mean by that. > If > > > it works in the conditions you care about I suppose you could say it is > > > safe. > > > > > > > or are we creating some future problems > > > > > > That's very possible. Or perhaps it will run for ten years before > > > someone else does a rewrite. > > > > > > I'm not sure why, knowing what you obviously do, you are wedded to > using > > > Switch. I would be trying to use a dispatch table, if the case > > > insensitivity of $command would allow it. Failing that, I see nothing > > > particularly unreadable about the if/elsif/else chain. Especially if > > > you make the bodies into sepatate subs so you only have one sub call > per > > > condition. Then you could line everything up vertically to make it > very > > > readable. > > > > > > Even if you update your perl version I would stay away from given/when > > > for now. > > > > > > And you should update your perl version. It's unsuported, buggy and > I'm > > > sure it has security problems which have been fixed in the last eight > > > years. (That's always a good case to make to management folk.) > > > > > > -- > > > Paul Johnson - p...@pjcj.net > > > http://www.pjcj.net > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Chankey Pathak <http://www.linuxstall.com> > > -- > Paul Johnson - p...@pjcj.net > http://www.pjcj.net > -- Regards, Chankey Pathak <http://www.linuxstall.com>
